YES Bank takes UBS to SEBI over research report; Bank of India approaches RBI against auditors
YES Bank takes UBS to SEBI over research report; Bank of India approaches RBI against auditors
SC: Shows mirror of "equality" to Mallya, imposes exemplary costs for FERA-summons evasion
Govt. claims success in improving India's IP ecosystem through e-filing, administrative reforms
CCI: Approves Capgemini-iGate merger, despite overlaps in consulting, BPO segments, as combined market-share negligible
CCI: Approves IndusInd-RBS slump-sale deal; Banking services to jewelers standalone, forms separate market
MCA relaxes additional fees payable on annual filing forms, e-forms being developed
MCA relaxes the additional fees payable on forms for filing of financial statements (AOC – 4 or AOC – 4 XBRL) and Annual Return (MGT – 7) up to October 31, 2015; Clarifies that a company which is not required to file its financial statement in XBRL but is required to filed consolidated financial statements, shall file the same in separate form without payment of additional fees up to November 30, 2015; States that the electronic version of Forms for filing of financial statements & form of Annual Return are being developed and will be made available latest by September 30, 2015 and separate form for filing Consolidated Financial Statement (AOC – 4 CFS) will be made available by October 2015: MCA.
Pending trademark registration, Vistara Voyages' infringement suit against Tata-SIA not maintainable
HC allows Tata Sia Airlines' ('petitioner') writ against Vistara Voyages ('respondent'), sets aside Civil Court's order that tried and allowed respondent's trademark infringement suit, despite no jurisdiction; Interprets Sec 134 of Trademarks Act (jurisdiction provision)and observes that for an action of infringement of 'registered' trade mark, District Court where plaintiff resides or carries on business would have jurisdiction and for action of passing off, District Court would have jurisdiction even if trademark is unregistered; Observes that since respondent's application for registration of its trademark was pending before Registrar, suit was not maintainable u/s 134 before Civil Court, Bengaluru; Further observes that respondent in its suit did not claim for perpetual injunction against petitioner for passing off, thus, Civil Court could not entertain the suit; Also notes that petitioner did not reside at Bengaluru & no business was carried at Bengaluru thus, holds that even no cause of action arose at Bengaluru, states that "Cause of action is a bundle of facts giving rise one or more basis for institution of a suit..."; Relies on SC rulings in Dhodha House vs S.K.Maingi, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs UOI, Rajendran Chingaravelu vs R.K. Mishra (income tax ruling), K. .Narayanan and Ors vs. S.Murali:Karnataka HC
The ruling was delivered by Justice Aravind Kumar.
Senior Counsel, Dyan Chinnappa alongwith Advocate Madhukar S argued on behalf of the petitioner, while respondent was represented by Senior Counsel Uday Holla alongwith Advocate Shamanth S.N.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment